Faramir's (and Boromir's) Dream

[alatar]

Great posts! Glad that I stumbled upon this thread. Anyway...

- The dream has no sender. It's possible that Númenórean blood imparts a sensitivity to the Music. Persons can 'hear' bits and bars of the history of Arda being (re)played out. But, you may say, this dream of Faramir's includes a 'do this' phrase that wouldn't come from just passively receiving the Music (like in Frodo's dreams). However, if the Steward's sons are hearing the Music, and seeing what is to come, they would see that one of the two of them will be 'seeking' Imladris, and so interpret (maybe fuzzily) what they hear as a command.

- The dream has a sender. I believe that Eru or one of the Valar have sent the dream, and earlier posters have made my argument. That said, if there is a sender, do you think that the sender hit his/her/its target? Did the 'intended' brother go north? If so, then why was Faramir so inundated with it? If not, then what does that say about the dream-sending mechanism?

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by alatar

The dream has no sender. It's possible that Númenórean blood imparts a sensitivity to the Music. Persons can 'hear' bits and bars of the history of Arda being (re)played out. But, you may say, this dream of Faramir's includes a 'do this' phrase that wouldn't come from just passively receiving the Music (like in Frodo's dreams). However, if the Steward's sons are hearing the Music, and seeing what is to come, they would see that one of the two of them will be 'seeking' Imladris, and so interpret (maybe fuzzily) what they hear as a command.

If this is the case, I still wonder why the two of them had the word "halfling" in their dream. Just as the word wouldn't seem likely to be in the Gondorian psyche, I have doubts Hobbits were in the Music as known to the Valar (and by proxy, the Eldar and the Númenóreans). It is said in the Ainulindalë that Eru did not reveal all to the Valar, and I feel Hobbits were one of those "secret" things, mainly because none of the source "authors" of Bilbo's Books of Lore made reference to them.

Originally Posted by alatar

- The dream has a sender. I believe that Eru or one of the Valar have sent the dream, and earlier posters have made my argument. That said, if there is a sender, do you think that the sender hit his/her/its target? Did the 'intended' brother go north? If so, then why was Faramir so inundated with it? If not, then what does that say about the dream-sending mechanism?

I think the Sender knew what would happen in advance; that Boromir would insist on going and would get his way. Faramir was naturally more touched by it than his brother because he was more receptive to the idea that Gondor needed help, and the idea of Elendil's sword returning was attuned to his reverence for the past, and hope for the return of the King.

Boromir, on the other hand, wanted only to destroy the immediate threat, Sauron, and wasn't really all that interested in the King coming back. I think he only went to Rivendell because Faramir was set on doing so.

[Sarumian]

It looks, Denethor at some point came to the idea that the treacherous Grey Wizard was the sender of the dream... And I please myself thinking he was correct. What Denethor could never appreciate is that someone else was able to take better care of Gondor. I would like to bar powers far away from involvement into every tiny thing happening in ME. In my version the dream was sent by Gandalf but the verses were most probably written by good old Bilbo. Why Gandalf needed a son of Denethor coming to Rivendell? Simply because it was Elrond's land, where, out of Denethor's reach, the stranger would have paid more respect to His Majesty unmasked. He initially wanted Faramir to be the witness for the coming king. It was in vain, however, as Faramir's father did not believe dreams as other ultimate rubbish. So Gandalf changed his mind in favour of Boromir. He could have thought it was even better to convince the stubborn elder brother to embrace the king returning as he was able to put pressure on his own father. With the Ring in proximity it all came up even more complex but worked well in the end (not for Boromir, unfortunately, but I believe, Eru redeemed him). And if Gandalf appears a bit machiavellian this way, it only gives more insight into his character and circumstances. He also was slightly ruthless when he persuaded Thorin Oakenshield and Bilbo to go for their dragon hunt, wasn't he?

[Galadriel55]

I don't really think that Bilbo composed the lyrics and Gandaf sent them to the brothers.

The dream was a prophecy. Bilbo, as good a poet as he was, did not make prophecies. He based some of his poems (like the Aragorn one) on existing prophecies, but he was no diviner.

If Gandalf indeed sent the dream, I don't think he even thought of the lyrics. He sent the idea, the purpose, you name it. The words came out because Elves and Men of high descent in ME happen to be poetic/musical.

But even that seems unlikely. The Gandalf that "ruthelessly persuaded" Thorin and Bilbo is only half-canonical, if you get my meaning. This was the same Gandalf who was afraid of wolves and threw pinecones at them from the top of a tree. Is it the same Gandalf who defeated the Balrog? TH is a bit of a different story, separate from the rest of ME...

And anyways, I don't think Gandalf is that much into intrigue and politics to try to convert one of Denethor's sons so that he'd put pressure on his father.

I like what Alatar proposed:

- The dream has no sender.

This is probably the most realistic of the theories, IMO. But I think it's because the Numenorians, like Elves, had a bit of a divine side to them, not because of the Music. They all were inclined for a bit of prophecy here and there.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

This is probably the most realistic of the theories, IMO. But I think it's because the Numenorians, like Elves, had a bit of a divine side to them, not because of the Music. They all were inclined for a bit of prophecy here and there.

The problem I have with this interpretation is the timing.

For me, it strains credibility to think that both sons of the Ruling Steward of Gondor would just happen to have the dream at just the right moment: not long before the Halfling in question set out for Imladris on his own. Even Michael Bay wouldn't film such a contrived plot. Well, ok. He would.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

For me, it strains credibility to think that both sons of the Ruling Steward of Gondor would just happen to have the dream at just the right moment: not long before the Halfling in question set out for Imladris on his own.

But isn't this whole "councel of Elrond" thing all about the coincidental timing? Frodo & Friends come to Rivindell around the same time as Gimli, Legolas, and Boromir? I am not sure about Galdor since Elven settlements could be exchanging messengers all the time, and his presence thus would not be coincidental.

I do not have FOTR with me to quote, bt I think Elrond says it himself - they all came though none were called. They were all gathered by some force (call it "fate" if you prefer) to decide on the Ring and form a Fellowship.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

But isn't this whole "councel of Elrond" thing all about the coincidental timing? Frodo & Friends come to Rivindell around the same time as Gimli, Legolas, and Boromir? I am not sure about Galdor since Elven settlements could be exchanging messengers all the time, and his presence thus would not be coincidental.

I do not have FOTR with me to quote, bt I think Elrond says it himself - they all came though none were called. They were all gathered by some force (call it "fate" if you prefer) to decide on the Ring and form a Fellowship.

Which speaks for the idea that there was a purpose behind the dream, and against it being a mere by-product of Númenórean heritage.

[alatar]

I finally found my Sil...sometimes I swear it disappears into some other dimension, only to reappear when I'm looking for something else.

Anyway, maybe it's Gandalf implanting dreams...

Originally Posted by Valaquenta

But of Olórin that tale does not speak; for though he loved the elves, he walked among them unseen, or in form as one of them, and they did not know whence came the fair visions or the promptings of wisdom that he put into their hearts.

...or maybe there was no sender...

Originally Posted by Ainulindalë

And it is said by the Eldar that in the water there lives yet the echo of the Music of the Ainur more than in any substance else that is in this Earth; and many of the Children of Iluvatar hearken still unsated to the voices of the Sea, and yet know not for what they listen.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Just as a remark to the idea of Gandalf being the sender, let me requote something I have said earlier here:

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

(...) Gandalf or Galadriel would surely say, certainly at some point, "Yes, it was me who actually sent the dream", or it would be written in some of Tolkien's notes (I can imagine all these stories in UT with the behind-the-scenes stuff telling something about this). Gandalf himself was sitting at the Council when the question about the dream was brought forth. And (and that is the second point), wouldn't it be totally silly if Gandalf at that point had to say "um, yes, I actually know that dream, I have sent it myself?" Relatedly, I see no reason why Gandalf, or even less Galadriel, would send a prophetic dream to some random guy in Gondor. At least Galadriel: that would be indeed totally random, as Galadriel had nothing to do with Gondor. Gandalf would be more logical, as Faramir was his friend, but again, why then did also Boromir get the dream once? Perhaps only if Gandalf once "called the wrong number". In any case, once again, there is no indication that Gandalf knew anything about the subject before Boromir brought it up.

(emphasised relevant parts)

Also, I believe that the talk about Olórin's "power" refers to him talking to the people and "inspiring" them, not sending them dreams (although of course such a "power" could have had different manifestations inside M-E, but still, we see Gandalf "boosting the morale" of people, talking Hobbits into going for adventures, stuff like that, but he does that by subtleties in his talking, not by sending visions).

[FlimFlamSam]

Galadriel55 spoke: They were all gathered by some force (call it "fate" if you prefer) to decide on the Ring and form a Fellowship.

For fun, count the number of times "fate", "destiny", "chance" and other such synonyms appear in Lord of the Rings.

Inziladun was, I believe, more on the nose than many gave credit for when he mentioned the connection with Bombadil.

Bombadil and Goldberry (the River-woman and others) are physical manifestations of Gaia (the Greek Titan mother of all--or if you prefer, THE ONE).
It is probably no coincidence that Maia is related to Gaia linguistically, even though the term does not appear in Lord of the Rings. The term "The Powers" does.
Note also Gandalf's parting words to Frodo and company before he visits Bombadil.

The inclusion of Eru as an outside all-knowing God is a corruption to the mythologies of the region from which these elements are derived--namely pict/wode, norse, celtic, anglo-saxon and others.
It is an admitted authorial forced inclusion of a christian/catholic layer, which includes angels, devils and saints--Earendil as a chief example of Sainthood.
It does not belong. One of my problems with... other texts, and those that came after.

I would use an analogy here that may help.
The Silmarillion and other unfinished tales/brief essays and written letters to fans and other people is like Cooking oil.
The Lord of the Rings is like Motor oil.
The Hobbit is like Baby oil.
Just because they all contain the word "oil" does not mean that they belong together. Putting motor oil into your cooking oil gets you things like Myths Transformed and others of that ilk. Putting motor oil into your baby oil gets you things like the aborted 1960 rewrite attempt of The Hobbit.
Galadriel55 mentioned the severe recasting of The Quest of Erebor--this is more a result of putting both cooking and motor oil in the baby oil.

That said...
Returning to what the Lord of the Rings itself presents:
The earth itself speaks quite often in Lord of the Rings. The ents and other living things draw their power (for even MORE fun, check the number of times the word "power" comes up in relation to inhabitants and locales) from the earth--like Old-man Willow for example. The earth is an active participant in events, and is seemingly the source guiding them though visions and dreams as the hand of fate, as all living things are part of the earth and connected to it.
Dust to dust as they say.

Note the Arthurian connection between Gandalf/Aragorn and Merlin/Arthur.
You can go even further with the Lady of the Lake (another manifestation of Gaia) and Excalibur. The mysterious appearance of the seedling of the white tree found on Mindolluin presages any of the incidents leading up to the war of the ring. Checking the Tale of Years shows no event that would account for the emergence of the seedling, not even the presence of Gandalf, yet Gandalf knows it will be present and why he takes Aragorn to that spot.
Attribute it to Eru if you like, but once you look at the whole picture that explanation falls flat on its face.

The symbols of the reigns of both Arthur and Aragorn are derived from the earth.
Excalibur is drawn from the earth (the stone) and returned to the earth (via the Lady of the Lake) at the end of Arthur's reign. Aragorn obtains the seedling at the beginning of his reign (Narsil as well if you care to continue the Excalibur connection).
They are gifts, from the earth.

As an amusing aside; Gandalf is twice obliquely compared to Merlin in Lord of the Rings as aging backwards. Once in Shadow of the Past and once in Voice of Saruman.
In Shadow, he recalls his appearance 90 years previous where his hair was whiter, his beard and eyebrows longer, and his face more lined with care and wisdom. Curious statement, no?

In Voice, Treebeard has a joke with Gandalf concerning haste and how he feels he is growing backwards towards youth. While this statement seems innocuous, notice that "hasty" is exactly what Gandalf is after his "renewal".
In fact, just about every second sentence out of his mouth concerns haste and his need of it, and he constantly berates others for their lack of it.
How does he "heal" Theoden? He basically tells the old fart to get up off his arse, go outside and DO SOMETHING. Be hasty. Renew. Theoden Ednew.

Old Gandalf--pretty much just farts around, mostly.
Oh he does stuff, but not in haste.

While the Arthurian connection is not terribly important to the overall discussion, the fact that "renewal" is a product of change, not idleness. Mother Nature (or Gaia) is not idle. Howerver it does also serve to illustrate the connections to the regional mythologies drawn upon, and is not christian/catholic in origin.

Another connection to the Gaia earth theme is the five wizards themselves.
They are elemental. Earth (Radagast), Fire (Gandalf), Air and Water (the Blue wizards) with Saruman representing the fifth element--Man, and Man's tendancy to be either corrupted or exalted.
Exalted, the head of the order commanding all the other elements.
Corrupted, cast out.

The earth themes flowing though the book are strong once you recognize them for what they are. Just look at the level of detail regarding descriptive nature elements in the book if you doubt nature is a heavy authorial theme.

Remember, oils do not all mix.
Doing so leads to alchemical frustrations as the author (and myself) belatedly discovered.
Keep the ingredients pure.

[blantyr]

Originally Posted by FlimFlamSam

Remember, oils do not all mix.
Doing so leads to alchemical frustrations as the author (and myself) belatedly discovered.
Keep the ingredients pure.

Your oils metaphor is interesting, but I am pleased Tolkien dabbled in different genera. I see the Silmarillion and similar works to be pastiche, “an artistic work in a style that imitates that of another work, artist, or period.” These older works were often in the style of the old epics, while The Hobbit and LotRs were more modern novels. Silmarillion was close to a pagan theme, while The Hobbit had a strong tine of children’s work, while LotR leaned towards the Christian world view.

Tolkien grew as an author and a scholar. He did not retain the same perspective and values in his art over his entire life. As he grew, his highest priority was not to go back and rewrite his older stuff so that all his works are nitpick consistent. His newer works borrowed depth and flavor from the older, but fans expecting all the works to be entirely in agreement with one another are… Hmm. In the interests of keeping things friendly, I guess I’ll not say explicitly what they are.

If you are encountering ‘alchemical frustrations,’ I suspect the problem is with you rather than Tolkien. You are demanding of The Master more than he was interested in giving.

As for your elemental interpretation, it seems sort of plausible, but hardly the only possible view. I would, for example, associate Radagast with Beasts rather than Earth. I would call Saruman an Artificer, rather than associating him with Man. (And, yes, I am using Ambar Quenta’s perspective on Middle Earth again, but I reject an argument that AQ must be wrong because it was created for role playing. Radagast is a specialist in beasts, while Saruman works with machines and artifacts. In this case, AQ’s system of realms is just more comprehensive and true to Tolkien than an elemental approach.)

Is there any source for a claim that the blue wizards are associated with air and water?

I also just have a gut feeling that Middle Earth and the Arthur mythos are sort of like two different types of oil.

[Rumil]

Interesting points FlimFlamSam, though I'd disagree about Gandalf aging backwards.

In the Shadow of the Past, Frodo notes that Gandalf appears older and more careworn. Then Gandalf thinks back to Bilbo's day with

His hair was perhaps whiter than it had been then

etc, showing that G was aging forwards if, admittedly, very slowly!

Though agree that after his renewal there was considerably more spring in the step of Gandalf the White.

Meanwhile on the dream, why was it sent to Boromir at all if Faramir was supposed to go, on the other hand why bother with Faramir if Boromir was supposed to go all along?

(I'd subscribe to the Eru/Valar/outside fatey sort of thing interpretation by the way.)

Was the dream sent to Boromir to increase Denethor's belief in it? Otherwise it could just be interpreted by Denethor as that ditzy wizard's pupil younger son off chasing fairy tales again.

Was Boromir lying when he claimed to have had the same dream. Unlikely I think, but perhaps worth considering. Motivation - I'm the elder, so all the important stuff should be done myself. Or - I don't think Faramir's up to the job, it'd be better for me to do it. Or - Dad wants me to go instead so I'll play along.

What was the job? If you put yourself in Denethor's position, then the mention of the Sword that was Broken and Rivendell, on the border of Arnor, should make you put two-and-two together and come up with an heir, real or pretended. If you're Denethor, should you send the 'weaker' son who might end up with the wool pulled over his eyes and support the 'heir', or should you send the stronger son, who's more likely to have the interests of Gondor, ie the Stewards, at heart? Bear in mind the risks of them being lost en route, or even suffering some 'accident' at the hands of this unknown 'heir'.

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by FlimFlamSam

It is probably no coincidence that Maia is related to Gaia linguistically, even though the term does not appear in Lord of the Rings. The term "The Powers" does.

Like this wasn't exactly the kind of punning on RL languages that Tolkien explicitely denied played any part in his linguistic inventions (I can't cite the exact letter at the moment, but he was answering somebody who had wondered whether Sauron was connected to Greek sauros.)

Originally Posted by FlimFlamSam

The inclusion of Eru as an outside all-knowing God is a corruption to the mythologies of the region from which these elements are derived--namely pict/wode, norse, celtic, anglo-saxon and others.[...]
It does not belong. One of my problems with... other texts, and those that came after.

Only if you think Tolkien's task was to render those mythologies as he found them rather than create something new inspired by them. In other words, you're talking about what he should have written according to your opinion, not what he did write. I'm not always happy myself with Tolkien's attempts to bring his legendarium in accord with his Christian faith, but I think we must accept that this was important to him and include it in our interpretations rather than discard it as a 'corruption' of a 'pure' mythology that isn't there in the texts.

Originally Posted by FlimFlamSam

As an amusing aside; Gandalf is twice obliquely compared to Merlin in Lord of the Rings as aging backwards. Once in Shadow of the Past and once in Voice of Saruman.
In Shadow, he recalls his appearance 90 years previous where his hair was whiter, his beard and eyebrows longer, and his face more lined with care and wisdom. Curious statement, no?

No. Quoted in full, the passage you refer to reads like this:

Gandalf was thinking of a spring, nearly eighty years before, when Bilbo had run out of Bag End without a handkerchief. His hair was perhaps whiter than it had been then, and his beard and eyebrows were perhaps longer, and his face more lined with care and wisdom[...]

(bolding mine)
Quite clearly the comparison is exactly the other way round than you were suggesting.

Originally Posted by FlimFlamSam

The earth themes flowing though the book are strong once you recognize them for what they are. Just look at the level of detail regarding descriptive nature elements in the book if you doubt nature is a heavy authorial theme.

It would indeed be foolish to doubt or deny that nature was highly important to Tolkien, and it has often be said (and justly) that Middle-earth itself is the main character in LotR, while Eru, to the extent that he plays any part at all in the story, is very much kept in the background - a force to be guessed rather than a manifest one. Why that means that we must disregard him and the wider context of the legendarium when talking about LotR is, however, beyond me.

It's not like I don't sympathize to a degree with your championing Gaia, and focussing on the meaning generated by the text over the author's intention is of course a legitimate method of literary criticism; but in general, your arguments look to me like you're bringing your own agenda to the text and trying to make the two agree willy-nilly.

Originally Posted by FlimFlamSam

Keep the ingredients pure.

No. Writing, like cooking, is all about blending ingredients; it's the proportional mixture of the ingredients that makes a book or a meal interesting. Purity is boring.

Originally Posted by blantyr

As for your elemental interpretation, it seems sort of plausible, but hardly the only possible view. I would, for example, associate Radagast with Beasts rather than Earth. I would call Saruman an Artificer, rather than associating him with Man. (And, yes, I am using Ambar Quenta’s perspective on Middle Earth again, but I reject an argument that AQ must be wrong because it was created for role playing. Radagast is a specialist in beasts, while Saruman works with machines and artifacts. In this case, AQ’s system of realms is just more comprehensive and true to Tolkien than an elemental approach.)

Well, Radagast was a Maia of Yavanna Kementári, whose epithet means "Earth-Queen", and Man can be defined as an artificing animal (Homo faber); but in Middle-earth, artificing isn't the sole province of Men - the Noldor were there before, and your interpretation of Radagast and Saruman certainly fits what we're told of them in LotR. (By the way, I don't think everybody ever said that "AQ must be wrong because it was created for role playing" - just that using it as an interpretative approach can be useful in some cases but less useful in others.)

Originally Posted by blantyr

I also just have a gut feeling that Middle Earth and the Arthur mythos are sort of like two different types of oil.

I have a gut feeling that you're in good company there.

[blantyr]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Well, Radagast was a Maia of Yavanna Kementári, whose epithet means "Earth-Queen", and Man can be defined as an artificing animal (Homo faber); but in Middle-earth, artificing isn't the sole province of Men - the Noldor were there before, and your interpretation of Radagast and Saruman certainly fits what we're told of them in LotR. (By the way, I don't think everybody ever said that "AQ must be wrong because it was created for role playing" - just that using it as an interpretative approach can be useful in some cases but less useful in others.)

While Kementári translates as "Earth-Queen," Yavanna is "Giver of Fruits." Looking at her history as tender of the first plants and patroness of the Ents, I associate her with plants more than anything else. Radagast seems to deal with animals more than plants, but I could see where he would be associated with her.

Reviewing the Valar, I’m not sure anyone is associated with the element Earth as clearly, for example, as Ulmo is to the sea. Even there, Ulmo is of the sea rather than of all water. If one was determined to dwell on an elemental theme, one might say Elbereth is associated with air, but she is better associated with the stars and protection from Shadow.

Anyway, there are too many Valar for the four elements to be the major theme. If elements were the major theme, the four most potent Valar ought to be clearly associated with the elements. This doesn’t feel right to me.

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

(By the way, I don't think everybody ever said that "AQ must be wrong because it was created for role playing" - just that using it as an interpretative approach can be useful in some cases but less useful in others.)

Perhaps they did not use these words, but I have found it best to plagiarize on these boards when expressing ideas found in AQ. If I attribute ideas to the true source, I get flack, so much of the time I don’t attribute anymore. While AQ is hardly canon, the author and his circle took a much more systematic and inclusive approach to Tolkien than most fans.

AQ does have a filter. Trying to be detailed enough for a set of role playing rules means a lot of gaps have to be filled with extrapolation and guesswork. Still, it seems like everyone has some sort of filter, for example filtering Middle Earth through the lens of the Arthur mythos and elements. Others seem to believe all of Tolkien’s works ought to be consistent, and find themselves hacking away at bits and pieces of various stories in an attempt to remove conflict with other stories. I would rather let each work stand on its own.

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by Sardy

I am of the opinion that the dream-message was not sent by Eru or the Valar, but rather most likely by Gandalf or perhaps Elrond, as they both had vested interests in seeing Aragorn back on the throne...

It could be a joint message from Vairë and Lórien Gosh, I haven't posted here in ages. I'd say more, but right now I'm ill and my brain isn't working.